When is recall higher than recognition?

Tulving, Endel

doi:10.3758/bf03331403

Cited by 79 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was so even though the target word (to-be-remembered word) was a weak associate of the cuing word-I% using the Bilodeau and Howell (1965) and Riegel (1965) free association norms. In this respect , their procedures extended the research invest igating the conditions that lead to higher recall than recognition (Bahrick & Bahrick, 1964;Lachm an & Field , 1965 ;Lachman, Laughery , & Field, 1966 ;and Tulving , 1968). Tulving and Thompson (1973) argue th at what is stored about a word on a list is information about the specific encoding of that word in the task context.…”

Section: Tul Ving Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tul ving and Thompson (1973) demonstrated that when Ss were induced to encode words in the "context" of another word and then were tested both with a cued recall task and a recognition task, they were able to recall more words than they could recognize. This was so even though the target word (to-be-remembered word) was a weak associate of the cuing word-I% using the Bilodeau and Howell (1965) and Riegel (1965) Field, 1966 ;and Tulving , 1968).Tulving and Thompson (1973) argue th at what is stored about a word on a list is information about the specific encoding of that word in the task context. The stored information mayor may not include the target word's relationship with some other word (or words).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

Olson

1974

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tulving and Thompson's (1973) procedure was used to test for both cued recall and recognition of the same set of target words. Analyses indicated that performance on the former was superior. However, if the kind of "syntactical" pairing (noun-adjective, verb -noun or noun-noun) was examined, the effect was restricted only to the noun-adjective pairs. These results suggest a limitation in the generality of Tulving and Thompson's (1973) encoding specificity hypothesis and raise the possibility that their results were artifac tuaI. Tul ving and Thompson (1973) demonstrated that when Ss were induced to encode words in the "context" of another word and then were tested both with a cued recall task and a recognition task, they were able to recall more words than they could recognize. This was so even though the target word (to-be-remembered word) was a weak associate of the cuing word-I% using the Bilodeau and Howell (1965) and Riegel (1965) Field, 1966 ;and Tulving , 1968).Tulving and Thompson (1973) argue th at what is stored about a word on a list is information about the specific encoding of that word in the task context. The stored information mayor may not include the target word's relationship with some other word (or words). If so, then the associated word may be an effective retrievel cue; if not, then it cannot give access to the stored word .The present experiment was prompted by an examination of Tulving and Thompson's (1973) results and preliminary pilot work which replicated their basic results. In both sets of data, it was observed that the word pairs could be classified as noun-adjective (NA), verb-noun (VN) , and noun-noun (NN), and that the difference in recall and recognition may have been related to the noun-adjective pairs . The present study further investigates this finding .

show abstract

Section: Tul Ving Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

Olson

1974

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of word pairs (paired-associate acquisition), we considered the important finding by Tulving and his associates (e.g., Tulving, 1968;Tulving & Thomson, 1973) that subjects may be able to recall items that they cannot recognize, that is, recognition failure. They demonstrated that for a word pair A-B, B may be recalled given A, but the same B items may not be recognized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.

Mandler¹

1980

Psychological Review

2,562

100

2,128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several suggestions for a class of theories of recognition memory have been proposed during the past decade. These models address predictions about judgments of prior occurrence of an event, not the identification of what it is, The history and current status of one of these models is discussed. The model postulates the detection of familiarity and the utilization of retrieval mechanisms as additive and separate processes. The phenomenal experience of familiarity is assigned to intraevent organizational integrative processes; retrieval depends on interevent elaborative processes. Other current theoretical options are described, and relevant supportive data from the literature are reviewed. New tests of the model involving both free recall and word pair paradigms are presented. The dual process model is extended to the word frequency effect and to the recognition difficulties of amnesic patients.

show abstract

“…Tulving's (1968) work on recognition failure of recallable words has placed even further emphasis on retrieval processes in recognition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Context and repetition effects in recognition memory

Donaldson

1981

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demonstration of a repetition effect in recognition memory when context at the time of test is different from that occurring during presentation places limits on the role played by context in interpretations of recognition memory. Four experiments are reported that explore those limits, including a situation in which the repetition effect does not obtain due to the nature of the context. The data are interpreted in terms of the important interaction between item information and contextual information in theoretical accounts of recognition memory.

show abstract

When is recall higher than recognition?

Cited by 79 publications

References 8 publications

The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.

Context and repetition effects in recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About